Forum Post: Socialism is Unbelievably Misunderstood.
Posted 10 years ago on June 1, 2013, 12:06 a.m. EST by Trilaksana
(27)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Time and time again Socialism is rejected on the basis of misunderstanding what Socialism is. Or at least what Marx meant by socialism or what Libertarian Socialism is. First of all there's the idea that the Soviet Union implemented socialist and communist ideals and failed horribly. It of course failed but it in no way implemented what socialism is. Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. It has nothing to do with making everything government run. It has nothing to do with taxes. It's about workers owning and controlling the means of production instead of all taking orders from a select few individuals. It not only makes for a better work place but a democratic economy because the group of workers determine how each business is run.
Now I don't think that this little rant is going to change many opinions about socialism if any or even educate anyone on what system socialists are advocating. So I have a proposal for those who think Socialism is the best option and those who at least think it's worthy of discussion. Maybe we should (in order to speed up the process of getting people over on our side) stop using the term socialism. Maybe we should create a new term and when people ask what's that we explain what socialism essentially. Hopefully they'll be interested in this 'new' economic theory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM
I believe that both socialism and capitalism can be better understood upon the question about universal self-employment put forth at http://occupywallst.org/forum/anti-self-employment/ being answered. Either it's something that both perspectives agree upon, for or against, or it's something that only one perspective disagrees with.
Agree - socialism has NEVER been implemented in full - the examples people use are in fact DICTATORSHIPS which never implemented the principles of socialism. They were just another dictatorship/rule of the FEW and damn the common individual.
It's important to note that socialism is implemented correctly in part in some countries, even most countries. For example, hospitals in Canada use a proper model of socialism. The good news to retain from this is that you don't need the whole country to be socialist (using that system for every institution) before implementation can commence. You can very well start one institution at a time. So, the revolution towards socialism can be progressive, it doesn't have to be a full on regime change caused by a coup.
There already are some socialist institutions in US. Public libraries is one example.
Public roads and bridges, Police and Fire departments too. But just because some parts of society are better served by socialist institutions doesn't mean every part of society would be better off using them.
Perhaps not. Can you give examples of institutions you think could not function well under socialism? And, do you think these would work better under capitalism, or some other form of economy?
It's hard for me to fully appreciate your point without clear examples.
The most obvious would be the market economy. Why have the government involved at all except to insure there is fair trade.
To make sure we create what is needed, not only what is wanted. And to make sure distribution is done properly. A simple example would be the world's food supply. There is enough food created to feed everyone on earth, but the distribution is so awful that more than a billion people are considered seriously poor and malnourished. Some companies even burn wheat and corn when production is too high in order to create more scarcity so prices can be elevated.
All of the people's basic needs should be met before we allocate energy, time, and resources to create luxuries. This does not happen in a free market because those in charge only look at profits for themselves and their shareholders. That's their priority. They are not worried about whether or not all the basic needs are taken care of.
Before we have companies making fancy toys for children, we should make sure all these children are fed. Those people making toys would instead work on the feeding problem. Once fed, they would go back to making luxurious items. That's the basic principle of socialism. Take care of needs, then take care of luxuries. Not the opposite like capitalism.
Show me a socialist country that has successfully controlled it's market economy?
I don't think there ever was a socialist country which was properly implemented. The reasons are many, usually to do with dictators controlling the economy instead of a proper government or people. This certainly does not mean it couldn't work. The fact that certain institutions like health care in Canada work better than health care in US shows that it could.
Do you have any counter-arguments to the ones I made above? Or, perhaps you have clear arguments as to why socialism couldn't work? Using the past as reference is a type of logical fallacy, like saying something will work simply because it already has, or something will not because it hasn't yet. You need to explain why it would work again, or could not work at all.
The obvious argument against a socialist market economy is that it's too complex to manage efficiently. A distant government doesn't have the expertise or the ability to administer the millions of decisions among thousands of completely different types of businesses that are necessary each day.
Health care is just one type of business. Can you imagine multiplying this by a factor of ten thousand?
I don't see a problem with this. It's just a question of scaling from local to global level. You can't really escape the problems of complexity when you have 7 billion people on earth. We need to feed everyone and make sure their basic needs are met. Capitalism cannot do this. Technology can also be of great help to help us control this complexity. Computers can create models of distribution, products could easily be tracked, etc... I don't really see complexity as an obstacle, more like a challenge. We have scientists everyday tackling extremely difficult and complex problems, I'm happy they don't give up simply because it's complex.
Capitalism easily provides the wealth, the problem is to get the wealth fairly distributed. It doesn't take computers to do that. It takes a shift in the minds of people to realize that they are just as valuable and essential to the economic system as the richest man on earth.
The reason wealth is not properly distributed is because of capitalism itself. In capitalist societies, companies are not concerned about making sure everybody has enough wealth, they are only concerned with making money for their shareholders. If food companies lost money because all the population is not fed, you can be sure the world hunger problem would be resolved tomorrow. Capitalist businesses solve problems very quickly when their money is in danger. The reason we have such a hunger problem is because capitalistic food companies would lose money, not make more money, if they tried to feed everyone.
A socialist economy is based on making sure the needs of everyone are met before luxuries are brought in the system. This is what makes it possible to ensure proper distribution. Because, properly distributing is part of the goal. It is not part of the goal in capitalism. In capitalism, distribution is only based on profit. The more a certain type of distribution profits, the more it will be encouraged, even if many people starve because of it.
You can't separate the philosophy/method of creation of wealth from the philosophy/method of distribution of wealth like you are doing. They are intimately entwined.
All socialists systems so far have failed at providing adequate necessities. Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba only produced poverty in great abundance. Not until Russia and China changed to more of a market economy did they begin to prosper. They were intimately aware of socialism's inadequacies and decided to scrap much of it.
Distribution of wealth in a capitalist system is determined by selfishness. There is no set wage for any job category. It's not a matter of supply and demand. If a person doesn't stand up and demand a fair share of the product of his labor, he won't receive it. That's why unions were instrumental in raising wages, because an advocate stood up for those who were unable to negotiate for themselves.
The method for obtaining a fair distribution of wealth within a capitalist system is completely within our grasp this very minute. It just takes a little knowledge and the courage to act on it.
If every person making less than $13 an hour walked off the job today, and demanded a 10% raise, within a week that raise would be granted. Why? Because that's half of all American workers, 75 million people. If you think the power of violence will shut down a government, it doesn't compare to the power of non cooperation to shut down the corporations.
There never were any socialist systems which were implemented, not in the style of Marx's socialism. The fact that you think North Korea is a example of socialism says a lot. Read Marx again.
If you're going to skew the definition of socialism that far off target, then it's hard to have a serious debate.
Perhaps you should provide us with your definition of socialism first. Or use Marx's. Tell me what you mean by socialism and it'll help us discuss issues.
I mean, you're including North Korea in your definition. I'm sorry, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.
"Marx's socialism is about the means of production being owned by society as a whole. However, this can still be government run if the government represents the people."
Marxist socialism is the workers owning and controlling the means of production. It has never existed. It was always promised, but instead socialism was skewed to state control, with the illusion that the state and public were one.
We have an identical illusion in the U.S. That the government is an extension of the people, when in reality our government is an extension of the wealthy.
Defining any country's economic system by a single term is impossible. They are a mix. Even the U.S. is not a purely capitalist system. It has elements of both socialism and anarchism. Korea so far appears to have a tint of Monarchy. China mixes capitalism with communism.
Since there are no pure socialist states, I use the closest example of centrally planned economies. Whether pure socialism or pure communism, they both fail to take into account human nature. An economy that depends on selflessness, such as socialism and communism, produces less efficiently than one based on selfishness. The wealth may be distributed more fairly, but even the poor in a capitalist system are better off than most in a communist system.
Capitalism's failure to fairly distribute wealth should not be a reason to abandon it in favor of a less efficient system. The failure is the result of a lack of knowledge on the part of the workers. Change the minds of the workers, not the system.
You don't understand the basic dynamics of capitalism. Product distribution very much determines which products will be created. It's not an afterthought. Companies refine their product lines in terms of distribution. They decide what products to make and how many to make depending on how they foresee distribution.
Capitalist companies compete for money, and this is what drives the whole thing from creation, to distribution, to selling points. You'd have to change that so people don't compete for money, but instead compete to make sure products are distributed equally throughout the country. When you get that, you have socialism.
Distribution will never be about the needs of people in capitalism, it will always be according to how much money a company can make.
Simple example. Let's say you have a company that makes wheat and you want to distribute it all around US. Let's say that everywhere profit is made, except when you distribute to Hawaii. There, profit is lost. Is a socialist society they would still distribute to Hawaii because distributing to everyone is what matters, not making money. They could use profits from other distribution points to pay for the costs of distributing to Hawaii. In a capitalist system, the company would simply cancel distribution to Hawaii to cut loses.
BTW - I never talked about violence against the government. I talked about things like strikes and so on.
But yeah, if everyone complained like you are saying and demanded more, then the system would simply change to socialism. It wouldn't be capitalism anymore if the companies can't compete to make money. If they compete to satisfy everyone's needs, then it's socialism.
"BTW - I never talked about violence against the government. I talked about things like strikes and so on."
Didn't you say that Mandela's use of bombs was appropriate? Are bombs non violent?
"Product distribution very much determines which products will be created."
Demand determines what products will be created.
"Capitalist companies compete for money"
Capitalist companies create wealth.
"Let's say you have a company that makes wheat and you want to distribute it all around US."
So by your example there is no wheat shipped to Hawaii? In the real world, wheat is available in Hawaii. The buyers pay the additional shipping cost.
The USA has socialist practices - one good one is Social Security. Public education K-12 is another - should go through higher learning as well.
We need to push one institution after another. Trying to change everything at once doesn't work as it makes us and our message lose focus. I think health care should be the next target. Not only is health important, it should be a right for every American citizen to be healthy. America is a rich country after all! Also, so many large debts are caused by sickness and payments to the health care system. According to the stats amassed by the Rolling Jubilee 62% of bankruptcies are caused by illness. By making health care a socialist institution, not only would we assure the health of every American rich or poor, we would also alleviate the huge burden of debts caused by illness. It's such a foundation in society.
Perhaps we could even push for state by state reforms, in order to make it more progressive. If a small state tries and succeeds, the other states would envy it. As of now, many people are scared this would not work. I think it could. We should start by pushing a small state that is already very left wing and receptive to the idea.
I disagree with your analysis of approach = " Trying to change everything at once doesn't work as it makes us and our message lose focus. "
There is so much that is wrong - and there is a very common thread to all of it = GREED. To point out all of these things invites a wider base of support and understanding - as an issue that may not catch your attention may very well catch an-others.
It is after - ( for many ) - that the connections relations are seen/realized.
Greed is natural in all humans. The real problem is the system which fosters greed instead of trying to curb it. Without a complete revolution, this can only happen one step at a time. Unless your plan is to genetically modify humans to eliminate the 'greed' gene if there is one, the only solution is to curb greed at the political framework level. It can never be fully eliminated, so good checks and measures must be in place. Capitalism breeds greed, proper anarchy tries to curb it as best as possible.
Occupy failed at its revolution attempt. Those times are gone. Now, we are doing things bit by bit. I think it's important to stay focused on a few things. If we scatter all our energy across the board nothing will be accomplished. It's also important to note that many groups predating Occupy already work on many issues. We don't need to go there. We should tackle the most important issues like having proper health care for all.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-to-come-first-to-leave-or-paradigm-shift/
Getting rid of corp(se)oRAT personhood will be a major step in the direction of removing roadblocks from the growth of society.
That is one important aspect, yes. Occupy should pick a few and concentrate on those.
True, Marx's socialism is about the means of production being owned by society as a whole. However, this can still be government run if the government represents the people. Only in anarcho-socialism where there is no government because the people are the government would this be run by the people themselves. Indeed, with a government, the workers could run the day to day activities of the factory, but they would not decide on the larger aspects since the factory would be owned by society as a whole. The main goal is that these factories represent all the people and are not made for profit, like in capitalism.
I absolutely disagree with the idea of trickery by changing the term we use for socialism. I hear this a lot on this site and it's a very bad idea. It would make things more convoluted and confused, not simpler. It might fool those who know nothing about socialism, but it would confuse those who do. Not to mention, we already have a huge library of works that talk about socialism which we would have to ignore in order not to out ourselves. This is unrealistic and would never happen in academia circles, so you can simply forget it. The right thing to do is to better educate people as to what socialism was meant by Marx. Tricking people always comes back to haunt you in the end. With your idea, you'd only have people finding out later accusing socialism of not being transparent. It would make things worse in the long run. A lot worse.
; ) h&c ... I agree ... however.... I have suggested that many times ... but what I really have said is that
American's are so afraid of the simple word Socialism ... that any attempt to gain large support for a Socialized System ... you must call it something else... if you want to be successful ....
but I also have promoted many times the idea ... that there is nothing keeping anyone from developing and implementing their model of any social system... whether as a community... a business, etc...
I think the real problem here is that we sling the word "Socialism" around too generally.... mostly used to discredit Capitalism....
If we want to get anywhere with implementing Socialism, Social Systems... or Social anything.....we must first define "Exactly" what we want the system to do ... and not with just another label ... ie, Anarcho Socialism, Libertarian Socialism.... etc...
where are the details?... where are the specific's? ....
it's like someone running around saying... " I want a perfect world " ... and when asked "what is a perfect world ?" .... "well I don't know but I want it ?"...
or "I want socialism" .... "what is socialism ?" .... "well I don't know but I want it ?"... come on ... for any of this to be successful... the details must be defined....
and in doing so... we will have defined a system that will far surpass any socialistic or capitalistic system that has ever been built...
The details and specifics can be found in the theory of Karl Marx. Read his works. He goes in great depth.
You can't have a socialist business inside a world that operates with capitalism because the products you create will still be sold for profit. A coop in US is not really socialism if it sells its products for profit. The only way to have a socialist institution is for every one in the country to agree. For example, health care in Canada is a proper socialist institution. Every citizen can benefit and pays with taxes. The hospitals are not run for profit.
A business model is not just about the factory creating the goods, it's also about distribution and selling points. Everything changes when going from capitalism to socialism. They cannot interact, because they are opposite models. Capitalism is based on creating goods for profit, while socialism is based on creating goods to satisfy the needs of the populace in equal fashion.
hmmm... ok so you are also saying that ,,,, you can't have a socialist country inside a world that operates with capitalism because the products you create will still be sold for profit....
Basically yes. It's much more complicated than that, but, in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
Note, the socialist country would only have this problem if it sold products outside its country. This is why many of the communist regimes of the past closed their borders. It makes little sense to use socialism for import and exports with capitalist countries.
However, inside that specific country, goods could be created for the need of the people, instead of for profit. The country could always sell some of these extra goods for profit to other countries in order to keep their system running. In that sense, their socialist system would only be for themselves.
Socialism is when products are made for the need of the people. Capitalism is when products are made for profit. These two concepts are very far apart, and, in practice, everything from creation, distribution, marketing, selling, etc... would change. For example, you wouldn't have to market socialist products in the same way since companies would not be competing for profit. Go to Canada, hospitals don't market their services as being better than another one, or cheaper. You don't see hospital commercials in Canada.
;) ... but we are also saying that worthy Socially structured systems can be put into reality that do work within the world... correct ?
and logisticly ... this is where we have to start .... just as Occupy experimented with all sorts of governing processes ... all new things must be beta-tested first
You can create a socialist structure inside a capitalist society if it is isolated and contained so that it doesn't require making profits. This usually happens with services, more than with products because it's easier. For example, school in US is free until high school. This is a socialist institution. It works because the whole country, or at least each state, as agreed to it. Health-care in Canada is socialist.
You could have a socialist business that creates products if it was owned by the people and the products were not made for profit. For example, the government could decide that each citizen will have a computer, and that this computer will be changed every 3 years. The government would then collect taxes for this product, much like the government collects taxes for school and health-care in Canada. Those taxes would pay the factory, the workers, and the computers. Everyone in US would receive a "free" (paid by taxes) computer every 3 years. If the company made extra computers, then it could sell those for profit overseas, much like a hospital in Canada charges a foreigner for profit.
I agree, things need to be beta tested. Socialism nation wide like Marx theorized was never tested in real life. Personally, I don't think US is a good place to test. There's just too many people. It should be tested first on a very small country, perhaps Luxembourg or the like. Then problems can be ironed out and it could move to a bigger country. Unfortunately, politics is not like science and countries are not laboratories. We can't decide to beta test a whole national economic system on a country just for fun. We can run computer models to iron out obvious problems.
In any case, US doesn't have to beta test much. There's a lot of socialist services that other countries have that you should have too. Like a health-care system similar to the one in Canada. Just implementing all these services which exist in other countries would already make US such a better place. It could take years, and there's no testing to be done. You know it already works elsewhere.
I'm not talking of the details of the philosophy ... I'm talking of the details of the actual governing process ...
who does what ?
If we were given the power & support to implement our new system tonight at 9pm est ... who would do what ? ... all else is bull shit
The details of the governing process depends on what type of political system you use. Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. If you have anarcho-socialism then there is no government and things are run by the people themselves using direct democracy or another means. You could also have a system of representatives much like US has now. It could even be a monarchy or a totalitarian regime. Political and economic systems are two different things. The word socialism itself doesn't imply any particular type of governance.
As for Occupy, it's based on anarcho-communism. So, the organizers of this protest favor anarchy as the governing system. The ultimate idea of Occupy was to bring the republic down to its knees and replace it with full on anarchy - "direct democracy on each street corner" as they used to say. This failed. Now Occupy is mostly dead. There are offshoots that help the community through various projects like the Rolling Jubilee.
again.... no-one or working group ... has defined the details for any system... and if that's not what we are trying to do... they why are we here...
we had these same philosophical arguments in 3rd grade
Occupy was trying to define the use of a system, they were using it themselves. Direct democracy to create anarchy. The problem is that it failed for Occupy. Direct democracy is very complicated and we haven't solved the Democratic Reform Trilemma. Many people are working on this, and on e-democracy to permit the system to scale with more ease.
At this time, Occupy is not trying to change the political system any longer. Dreams of a full on revolution have ended. It's just offshoots helping the community through various projects.
There's still a lot of work to be done before US becomes a full socialist country. A lot of work on all fronts. Thinking, protesting, education, etc...
???? h&c... I have to think about that ... I don't understand what u r trying to say ... brb
I believe America ... will become a country where
etc
And I believe that this new system of government will be defined and born from this movement....
Good luck. Unless Occupy goals change I don't think you'll get that. It could happen, but we will need to find a way to make general assemblies scale. They couldn't work at the simple Occupy level, I fail to see how they will scale nation wide. Nothing's impossible.
You can help by figuring out a solution to the Democratic Reform Trilemma, or by creating some kind of e-democracy system that could be used nation wide.
BTW - What you describe is anarcho-capitalism, anarchy with a capitalist economy. I say this because you want people to still be able to own their own businesses, etc...
Occupy is based on anarcho-communism which is entirely different. If you want the world you described above, you'll have to start a new type of anarchist group based on anarcho-capitlism. Occupy won't do what you're describing. Capitalism is one of the biggest principles Occupy is against.
good post ...half agree ;) ... I wish to comment after work ....
hmmm... early on I was part of the Direct democracy working group ... I believe in DD .... at first I couldn't see how it could work... now I do ...
further it has not failed for Occupy ... we simply do not have the working model in place yet.... ALL the DETAILS are not in stone yet ;)
As John McCain's grandson might say .... "Occupy will last a hundred years" ;)
Direct democracy failed Occupy in the sense that general assemblies were stopped. They don't exist anymore. There was a lot of infighting and other problems. There's many articles on the issue. You should read this one which was written by one of Occupy's early organizers:
http://creativetimereports.org/2012/11/15/occupy-the-name-in-common/
I don't see any Occupy efforts to change the economic or political system at this time. I see Occupy doing community efforts like the Rolling Jubilee. Perhaps I'm wrong.
that's not what I understand ....
The goal of Occupy IS to "get the money out"
That's a sideline. The ultimate goal was to destroy the republic and replace it with anarchy. The whole thing about WallStreet was so that people would rally against the government on a certain point. Yes, Occupy would like to get money out of politics, but what Occupy really wanted was to rule America with anarchy using direct democracy - "On each street corner." Occupy was started by a group of anarchists. That's what anarchists dream of at night.
disagree .... Anarchists ultimately want a ruler free ... and actually a rule free world... and that IS the ultimate goal ....(John Lennon's Imagine sums it up pretty well) ... but are also practical enough to know that ... that might take hundreds of years to get to....
BS... that is the first and primary step for this movement ....
Yes, that is what I said. Anarchists want a ruler free world. That's why Occupy wanted "general assemblies on each street corner". They wanted to replace the republic (which has rulers, elected, but rulers non the less) with direct democracy so that everyone in the country could work together on the same playing field. It's about abolishing hierarchy.
And no, anarchy is not about an absence of rules. There can be many laws and rules in an anarchic society. Actually, there must be a lot of rules and laws because anarchy is extremely fragile. If left unchecked, it tends back to hierarchy very quickly. This was one of the problems with Occupy general assemblies. It's very difficult to make sure everyone has the same amount of power. Some use Robert's Rules. However, those don't scale very well. Unless we can solve the Democratic Reform Trilemma or create some kind of e-democratic platform for direct democracy, I fail to see how this setup can scale nation wide.
Anarchy only means without hierarchy, like atheism to theism. It does not mean without rules. The word has nothing to do with rules or not. What you describe would be called lawless-anarchy. Not something Occupy was pushing at all. Occupy is anarcho-communism, lawless-anarchy would resemble more anarcho-individualism.
Perhaps now, but it was not at the beginning. When it became obvious the revolution would not pick up like in the Arab Springs Occupy changed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/imagine-pure-anarchy/
Still though, it's impossible to predict how things will evolve as time goes on, as more people awaken to the corrupt world in which we live
~Odin~
BTW - Have you read this article? It was pointed out to me by jart. It explains the inner failures of general assemblies. Very revealing. It gives us a lot to chew on so that we can better Occupy for the next rounds. It's important to be auto-critical and learn from our mistakes.
http://creativetimereports.org/2012/11/15/occupy-the-name-in-common/
I wrote this post about it and for jart awhile back:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-nice-article-talking-about-the-early-failure-of-/
~Thrasymaque~ (Guess we both need to identify ourselves. Part of the banned squad. ;-)
interesting links.... for the record ... I was also banned from here ... early on.... sent Jart a msg... and she reinstated me and simply asked me to behave... I think I have ..; )
Very true. These types of human affairs are extremely complicated and unpredictable. Who knows what could happen tomorrow. Politics and economics are often setoff in chain reactions. Another economic crisis could get us enough people in the streets. A big mistake by the government. Another war. So many possibilities.
What we need to do is be even more ready next time the opportunity for mass protesting presents itself. In the meantime, we can already start working on creating a better world by starting coops and various programs like the Rolling Jubilee.
~Thrasymaque~
why do we ding Thrashy every time he show's himself... who cares about his games... maybe he's bored.... I like some of his arguments they are valid... would Occupy be better of w/o him... or anyone.. ? ... I think not...
and who knows ?... maybe h&c is posting as Thrashy ...and not really him... & hehehe maybe there isn't even a Thrashy.... and we are all playing games ;)
[Removed]
Yes. I recognize that it can be government run but my point was that it doesn't have to be government run to be socialist. And yet people reply to my post listing government run institutions as examples of socialism and they seem to think that's what makes it socialist. You clearly know more about Socialism than I do and I think after considering it further I think I agree with you. We should not change the term we use. However it's going to be a slow arduous process to educate people on Marxist socialism and libertarian socialism.
Perhaps the label of Socialism is as misunderstood as the label of Anarchism.